The General Court of the European Union, with decision of 22nd March 2023, ruled on the validity of the following community design registered with number 1202122-0001:
Having as object an electrode constituting part of a welding torch, thus providing interesting insights on what can be qualified as “component part of a complex product” pursuant to the European Regulation no. 6/2002.
Art. 4 of the Regulation under exam provides that a design or model incorporated in a product which is a component part of a complex product is considered new and with individual character only if such component part, once incorporated in the complex product, is still visible during the normal use of the latter (in other words during the use made by the final user).
A company of the Czech Republic, claiming the failure of the model in question to comply with the above requirements, acted before the EUIPO to have it declared void.
The company argued, in particular, that the electrode constituted a component part of a complex product (and that is a component part of a welding torch) and that the same could not benefit from the protection of a community model since it was not visible during its normal use.
On the basis of such argumentations, the opposition division accepted the request for invalidity which was however rejected in the phase of appeal by the EUIPO Board which observed on the contrary – that the product represented in the contested model could not have been considered as a component part of a complex product pursuant to art. 4 of the Regulation no. 6/2002.
Therefore, the General Court was addressed on this matter.
The European Judge observed that from the formulation of art. 3 of the Regulation no. 6/2002 resulted that the components part of a complex products are destined to be assembled to form an industrial or artisan complex object, which can be substituted to allow the disassemble and new assemble of a similar object.
The electrode under exam, however, as expendable of a torch, was destined to be easily added to it, depleted or used in relatively short time frames and easily substituted by the final users without such operation requiring the disassemble and the new assemble of the torch and cutting system, contrary to what requested by the definition referred to in art. 3 of Regulation no.6/2022.
The decision of the General Court
The General Court then observed that, given the expendable nature of the electrode, the final users who acquires and substitutes regularly such product is able to detect and assess its characteristics, regardless of whether the electrode stays visible after being installed in the torch. Added to this is the fact that torch could be offered on the market even without the electrode at issue.
Therefore, considering, among other aspects, the expendable nature of the electrode, the absence of the disassemble and the new assemble of the torch during the substitution of the same and the fact that the torch was to be considered complete even without the electrode at issue, the Court confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal and rejected the appeal.
Giulia Mugnaini